Posted on 11/28/2004 9:21:50 AM PST by Rockitz
LOS ANGELES — A new state law in California allows gay and lesbian couples nearly all the same rights and benefits of married spouses if they choose to sign up with a state domestic partner registry.
For thousands of same-sex couples in the state, that means legal recognitions they have long dreamed about having.
California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, author of the Domestic Partnership and Responsibilities Act (search), calls the measure historic. It grants same-sex couples everything from insurance benefits to adoption rights, but also adds responsibilities like their partner's debt.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The forms are FREE and freely available. No lawyer required.
You can go to your local office depot and pick one up for about $2-$3 dollars.
the days of "filing" a will before probate are gone
Sour grapes from a bunch of folks who want their bigotry (in the guise of Faith) codified into law and our most sacred public document.
My position remains unaltered: Get government ENTIRELY out of the sacred which means no more "marriage" licenses for anyone. Convert to civil union contracts. Marriage, the sacred tradition, belongs in institutions of FAITH, not government. It's time we recognize the difference and the wall which ought to be between government and faith. Folks can continue to say they're married, just like they do today, if the ceremony is performed by a justice, but government should not be issuing sacramental licenses. It's perverse, unAmerican and quite nearly sacrilegious.
The very liberal Dems in the California legislature and our very liberal governor, do not have the final say. They can pass bills repealing the law of gravity, but that doesn't mean we are going to float in the air.
The legislature passes unconstitutional laws all the time which are on occasion thrown out in court. However there is no judicial oversight unless a plaintiff takes the issue to a court. That is what is happening now.
And how is that proveable? One homosexual experience? No past heterosexual marriage? No past heterosexual experiences? A chosen lifestyle? A transgender attempting to engage in a "heterosexual" relationship when the partner is the same gender as the birth gender of the transgendered person? Is there a blood test for homos, for heteros? Brain scan? Maybe they can watch porn and see what turns them on. If it's two women in lesbian acts and you're male you're a red-blooded heterosexual American.
Of course what could happen is that girls wanting to direct that their child only be adopted by a heterosexual married couple could go out of state to give birth. There could be clinics set up in nearby conservative states just for this purpose.
Here're the facts:
On September 19, 2003 California Governor Gray Davis signed in a law the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, granting gay and lesbian couples most of the rights usually reserved for married heterosexual couples.
It is on the application form. If you lie on the adoption paperwork the adoption is VOID (not voidable, void as in it does not happen)
This may seem technical however the documents are under oath and penalty of prosecution. There are also the home studies, and other aspects. It is not the drivethrough at McAdoptions.
this is no differnt than INS applications which seem to ask absurd questions but are really traps for revoking a persons visa in the event of a lie.
Actually conservative Republicans have not declined to the point where we have our own obscure "wing". In fact, the most recent election has driven home the point that the public by and large SUPPORTS conservative Republican principles.
In fact, I didn't say which "very liberal governor" signed the bill. There has been a seemless streak of liberalism out of the Governor's office since 1990, so its really a trivial point.
But if you would like some evidence of your pal's liberalism, here's a clip from dan Weintraub's column in the Sacramento Bee, October 1st:
...The first hint of trouble for the right might have been Schwarzenegger's reaction to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's gay marriage gambit earlier this year. As Newsom issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, defying a voter-approved initiative that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, Schwarzenegger at first did nothing, then condemned the mayor's policy but did not step in to try to stop him. On a nationally televised appearance on the "Tonight Show,' Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't mind if California voters reversed themselves and voted to legalize gay marriage.
But that was only the beginning. With hundreds of bills sent to his desk at the end of the legislative session, Schwarzenegger has now been forced to choose repeatedly between the left-leaning social activism of the Democrats who control the Legislature and the conservative wing of the Republican Party he calls home. So far, he is leaning left.
Schwarzenegger, for example, signed a measure to force health insurance companies to offer the same benefits to same- sex domestic partners as they offer to wedded spouses. The bill has long been a priority of the state's gay and lesbian community.
He signed another bill expanding the definition of gender in hate crimes and discrimination law to include not just male and female, but also "gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.' The change is meant to protect "transgender' individuals from harassment or discrimination. ....
Bigotry? Am I a bigot for despising the habits of drug addicts, alcoholics, pick pockets, and litterers? Any time people choose a lifestyle based on behavior long rejected by society, then it is appropriate to criticize them. It is even more appropriate to oppose giving special rights to them. Faith doesn't even have to enter into it.
Homosexual Agenda Ping. I wonder if a referendum in CA for a Constitutional amdendment outlawing domestic partnerships/civil unions could pass.
It would be nice if it could.
I'm sick and tired of this. Any person of any stripe who wants to write a will, draw up power of attorney for someone, own anything jointly, etc etc etc can do it.
Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
This is not a 'given'; this has been argued for centuries. I have met some people who were simply 'odd' from childhood, who later announced that they were gay. In my experience, these people no more chose to be gay, than they chose to be white, black, asian or indian.
Yes, there are some who do 'choose' to be gay; but if you accept that about 2-3% of the population is born with a defect (blind, no arms, legs, deaf, mute or otherwise), then seeing a population of gays that does appear to be within the 2-3% margin seems to fit. I do not hate gays, I pity them.
Who would chose a lifestyle that will inflict pain and humiliation not only upon oneself; but one's friends and families as well. A lifestyle with a very high rate of suicide, alcoholism and one that seems to invite torment and physical abuse? Some gay men marry; have children, and try to fit in as a 'normal' person would; and we all know what a mess they leave behind when they decide that they are living a lie.
Yes, there are SOME who decide to follow the gay lifestyle for kicks and to fulfill some kinkiness; but can you imagine actually preferring to have sex with a member of your same gender? I certainly can not.
So, I guess you have never met a male child more interested in playing 'dolly' than sports, playing 'war', 'cowboys and indians' or other 'boy' stuff? You've never met the little boy who would rather sit and visit with little girls (we are talking kindergarten through 4th grade), than rough and tumble with the boys? Not because he's attracted to the girls (which is unlikely at that young of an age), but because he feels he has more in common with the girls than the boys. You've never seen an adolscent boy who had a feminine appearance or mannerisms; and watched him get beat up by the classroom bullies? Or the girl who had masculine attributes, and the girls nor the boys wanted anything to do with her?
Now, not all of these boys are gay; but it's pretty likely some are. Did they actively chose to have this disposition? Probably not. Would life have been easier if they were more like everyone else? Probably. I think we all know a child who is not like the other children. Do you hate him, or do you pity him. The gay lifestyle is not one I would wish on anyone, it's full of pain, humiliation and sorrow.
Who would consciously chose a lifestyle that would cause you to be a family embarassment? If your father merely dis-owned you; that would be a minor thing. Your brothers and sisters will likely turn their backs on you; your friends will ignore you, and your co-workers will tolerate you during office hours, and avoid you after-hours. There are simply not too many 'perks' to make up for the sorrow, pain and humiliation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.